Debate contribution: Conversion Therapy: Ban
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Conversion Therapy: Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490922
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. The Member is absolutely right to highlight that. We clearly need to protect people from coercive, abusive and humiliating practices, but that must not be at the expense of freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of religion or freedom of speech. That is why it is so important that we have a proper definition of conversion therapy. That is what has tripped people up in the past and led to unintended consequences, and it is why there have been a number of problems in other legislatures that have tried to get legislation through on it — they have also had to grapple with some of those rights issues — so it is important that we get it right.
120 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: 0.10 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.92 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 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.