Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- 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 5741399
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Given the point that was just raised by Miss McAllister as a point of order and the comments that were made by Ms Bradshaw in the previous debate, I just think that some of the contributions from the Alliance MLAs, digging at us, calling me "devious" and trying to make inferences and misrepresent my colleague, are really out of order. If that had been done by a male to a female in this Chamber, they would have been crying misogyny. I just want to put it on the record that I think that they are completely out of order.
99 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: Identity framing (0.78); Controversy escalation (0.76).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.62).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.78 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.76 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.04 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.53 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.25 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.62 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| 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 01:22 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.