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 5741336

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not made light of any situation. What we are trying to get to is the core of clause 6, which is the fact — it is a fact because you have put it in your Bill — that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" include what the victim considers that to be and what the person considers it to be. As we heard earlier from Members, that can be anything that anybody feels on any given day.

83 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.42 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.66).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.69).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.72).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.15No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.25No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.66Yes
Controversy escalation0.22No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.69Yes
Overall judgement0.42Between thresholds
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.72
Reports or questions it0.08
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.20
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

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.

Challenge this classification