Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494473
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One of my issues with the motion is its lack of definition. Some Members have been anxious to say that it does not apply to faith issues or anything else, but that is not what the motion says. In fact, the motion is centred around an LGBT-promoted report, which itself gives a clear insight into what it is directed at, because that report is a conglomerate of pretty confused stories from 10 individuals, one of whom complained that they experienced prayer, Bible studies and teaching. That is offered in the report as an example of conversion practices. If that is what conversion practices are, and that is what the motion seeks to outlaw, the motion is wholly wrong-headed and inappropriate. Of course, extreme issues, such as electric shock, which is already an offence, and all that, are totally wrong, but to try, under the radar, to embrace issues of religious teaching, which is what the motion is doing, is wholly wrong. I am tempted to say that maybe the real word of offence is "conversion". Conversion is not a wrong or a bad concept. None of us, by nature, likes to admit our failings, or even our sins, but it is the reality of those that, for some, make conversion relevant and necessary. To deny Christian Churches the right to pursue their work, to pray with those who seek it and to read and expound their scriptures with them — those are things that cannot be outlawed if we believe at all in religious freedom; rather, they are things to be protected. It seems to me that, so often in this society, the cry for equality and freedom from this quarter is only for LGBT+ interests, but not for Christians or freedom of religion. It is that which is under threat. I return to the point that the motion does not define what it means by "conversion practices", but does, in its innards, with regard to the report that it quotes, make it clear where it wants to go.
339 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.61 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.80); Dog-whistle messaging (0.64).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.60).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.80).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.80 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.33 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.31 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.64 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.61 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.10 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.