Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- 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 5741185
Read the official Assembly record
Text
helpful contributions that she made to the debate. At the outset, I feel that I should, regrettably, declare an interest. I could be unwittingly criminalised as a parent as a result of this legislation, if it goes further, and as a woman. Indeed, my father, who is a minister, could be criminalised as a result of the legislation, all because of simply having a conversation — a pastoral conversation — that will be wide open to interpretation through this ill-defined Bill. Like the rest of my colleagues, I have no hesitation in saying that many of the practices that have previously been promoted under the umbrella of conversion therapy were and remain appalling. Those obviously include the likes of electroconvulsive therapy, forced isolation, food deprivation and hormone therapy. We have all been very clear on these Benches that we disagree with those practices. Such practices, however, are already largely illegal. Indeed, our existing law already criminalises physical and verbal abuse and provides protection for victims of such abuse. When we look at the Bill, we see that it is misleading. In his contributions throughout the entire debate last week, the Bill sponsor asked what a lay person would see when they read the Bill. It is very hard to see or understand some of the elements of the Bill because it is so subjective and its definitions are not outlined. There are Members in the Chamber today who still believe that the Bill is about banning outright conversion therapy practices, but that is not what the legislation is solely about. It is not just about banning quack therapies. We already have legislative instruments that can be employed to deal with some of what the Bill seeks to legislate on. Instead, the Bill will criminalise freedom of speech. It will create a fear factor in many different areas of life, particularly in the home, in church and in business. I touched on my lifestyle last week. The Bill talks about talking therapy. I like to go to my hairdresser and to sit and talk in the confines of that salon. I consider it a haven for me, because I can talk to my hairdresser about many different things. If, however, I were to decide to start talking about my gender identity, what if my hairdresser were to offer me advice? We had consented to having the conversation, but what if I went home and then felt distressed and fearful about it? I could then take my hairdresser to court.
There are real-life consequences from the legislation. It could criminalise people in their business. It could criminalise a minister, a teacher, a parent — the list goes on — simply for having a conversation on what an individual believes is gender ideology, albeit self-determined gender ideology. Far from providing individuals with greater protection, the Bill therefore risks encroaching directly on fundamental freedoms and, in turn, breaching human rights. Furthermore, the proposed definition of "coercive behaviour" risks criminalising parents who are legitimately seeking to exercise parental authority or to provide guidance to their children on issues relating to sexuality and gender. For example, could a parent who refused a child's request for puberty blockers find themselves caught up in the legislation? The DUP does not believe that the legislation would be the mark of a tolerant or a liberal society, as people's human rights would be caught up in it.
567 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.55 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.87).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts a strongly antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.87 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.55 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.37 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| 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. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.