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 5741301
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. That brings me back to a point that I made in the House last week: the judiciary would be interpreting the legislation. In the House, we have been prevented from getting the definition of "gender identity" from the Bill sponsor. We look at clause 6, but we are still unclear. If the judiciary, as it has done in the past, were to refer to Hansard to get a flavour of the debate in the Chamber, how could it define something that the Bill sponsor will not define? It makes the entire process a folly. It is ludicrous that we are here on day 2 of the debate and the Bill sponsor has been protected time and time again from clarifying what he means. How would the judiciary have a hope of making a judgement when Members are still unclear about what the Bill sponsor intends "gender identity" to mean?
156 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.21 (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 (0.67).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.21 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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 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.