Debate contribution: Relationships and Sexuality Education
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 November 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Relationships and Sexuality Education
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5807286
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Committee Chairman for giving way. That goes without saying on safeguarding issues. That is why it is in the framework, and I have published the consultation responses. I say this to the public and to parents: do not be fearful of teaching on these issues because you hear the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin wanting RSE to be about trans issues. With respect, constituents of mine say that they hear those parties wanting children to have to hear about those issues, whereas, actually, I want them to hear about safeguarding. We need to protect the message of this debate. Safeguarding, online content and harm are the issues that all children should be able to learn about in our education setting, not the trans, woke agenda that has been put forward by Alliance and Sinn Féin.
138 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.79 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.68); Dog-whistle messaging (0.92); Controversy escalation (0.66).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.68 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.50 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.14 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.92 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.66 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.29 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.79 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.97 |
| 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 4 November 2026 at 04:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.