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 5741277
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes, and that is the exact fear that results from the legislation. I go back to the point that how somebody feels is included in the legislation, as is how someone will self-determine their gender identity as a result of the legislation. That is subjective and will allow organisations such as churches, parents and the businesses that I outlined to be subject to it. They will not be exempt from any list. There will be a chill factor, and a situation will exist in which how somebody feels will mean that somebody else will come before the courts for having a pastoral conversation.
The damaging and worrying part of the Bill that is central to my concern is in clause 6. We have talked about it quite a bit in the Chamber. It states:
"a reference to a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity includes— (a) what the victim considers it to be, and (b) what the person considers it to be."
The gate is wide open in relation to that. It is literally "Anything goes". It is how anybody decides on any given day to wake up and feel, and that is concerning. Again, it is based on feeling and subjectiveness. The Bill sponsor stated at the very beginning of the debate that that relates to gay and transgender sexual orientation, but we all know that there are subsections of those that list a number of gender identities. In the Chamber, I have done a quick search — I know that some colleagues have also done this — asking our friend Google how many gender identities there are. The result was:
"There is no fixed number of gender identities. Estimates range from dozens to over 100, reflecting the fluid, cultural and evolving nature of gender."
How can a court rule on gender identity when it is not defined in the Bill? How can somebody have a conversation when that is fluid and changes? There is a concerning nature to that for a parent, for a minister and for anybody trying to keep up with any form of gender list that is fluid.
Yes.
354 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain
Uncertain: this record is excluded from all totals until a person reviews it.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.53 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.75).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.51).
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.30 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.75 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.53 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.51 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.46 |
| 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.