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 5741670
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I absolutely agree, and I thank my colleague for his contribution. I will address some of Mr Delargy's comments. Just before he came in, my colleague Diane Dodds referred to some comments from Stella O'Malley, a highly respected Dublin-based international psychotherapist, about the Bill's major chilling effect. Comments about that chilling effect come not just from these Benches but from professionals, the community, counsellors and parents. Perhaps the Bill sponsor does not get lobbied in the same way as I do, but I have been overwhelmed by the number of people coming to or ringing my office and by emails from people who have spent a lot of money to get legal opinions on the issue, such is the strength of their conviction and their concern and fear about the dangers in the Bill.
134 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: 0.26 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.26 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.