Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741691
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. It is not the case that anything other than affirmation is acceptable but that coercion, harm and pseudoscientific therapy is unacceptable. That is a principle that, I thought, everybody in the Chamber agreed on, but I am beginning to question that. The exclusions in clause 7 that Paul Givan has referenced are to provide reassurance. We have had the debate around gender identity and why it is "gender identity" rather than "transgender identity". The purpose is so that it is universal. I cannot recall whether it was Deborah Erskine or Pam Cameron who gave the example of someone who wants to detransition. If a person freely decides that they wish to detransition and someone seeks to subject them to an unscientific therapy or a course of coercive behaviour to dissuade them from doing that, the legislation would apply in the same way as it would to somebody who wishes to transition or to somebody who is gay. We have employed universal definitions to ensure that people are protected in either direction, which, I had hoped, would bring some comfort to Members. It appears not to have done so.
195 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.20 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| 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 01:22 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.