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 4490934
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was clear in my answer to Mrs Erskine that we need to ensure that any legislation is rights-compliant and that we therefore cannot introduce legislation that puts a prohibition on freedom of expression or belief or on people's right to express their religious beliefs. Those views may not be palatable to everybody, but, in a free society, we must have the freedom to express them even when others strongly disagree. That is why, for me, the definition of conversion therapy is so important.
84 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: 0.24 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.24 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.50 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.49 |
| 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.