Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494496
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It has been an interesting if not challenging debate. Our amendment is self-explanatory. I agree that the abusive practice of conversion therapy can affect the mental health of anyone who may be subjected to it, and I recognise that the practice has been rejected by medical professionals, as it should be. We support a ban on such practices. It is, nonetheless, important to recognise that, where an individual voluntarily or actively seeks prayerful or pastoral support, that should be underpinned. One cannot rule out the value and importance of support and pastoral guidance from churches to their parishioners and congregations. Often, the church is a confidential and trusted point of first contact. Mr McGrath spoke of historical homophobic abuse that was sometimes hostile and unacceptable to those in the LGBT+ community: I agree with him. My colleague pointed out that coercive and abusive practices cannot and should not be tolerated and are not acceptable in any form: we agree with that. Emma Sheerin, in supporting the motion, said that a lot of work has already been done, and she called for action. Mr Tennyson spoke of equality and togetherness, the need for change and recognition of the possibility that harmful abuse comes through conversion therapy, and he called for a ban. I think that we all want that, but we want to protect religious freedom and freedom of speech at the same time. Doug Beattie highlighted his birthright as a straight man who cannot be changed by therapy: I agree with that. We are who we are; indeed, anybody born into the LGBT+ community cannot be changed by therapy. They are who they are. We are who we are. Sian Mulholland spoke of a misrepresentation of faith and highlighted a Christian ethos of compassion and love for fellow human beings. Sinéad McLaughlin called for full support from the Assembly. Jim Allister challenged the meaning of the motion and called it an "under the radar" attack on education and religion. He called for freedom of religion and for Christian teaching to be protected. Gerry Carroll said that it is a shame that LGBT+ rights are under debate in the House. It is important that we recognise the right to pastoral support and care. Therefore, I urge colleagues to support our amendment, which agrees to provide that protection while protecting religious freedom and the right of expression.
Yes.
396 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: 0.28 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
- 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 | 0.38 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.15 |
| Adopts it | 0.15 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.93 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.07 |
| 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.