Member's statement: Parliament Buildings: Rainbow Project
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: Rainbow Project
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937383
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There have been debates and motions in this place on the safety of women in Northern Ireland. There is an event today in Parliament Buildings — 'Nothing About Us Without Us - Trans Voices in the Halls of Power' by the Rainbow Project — that raises huge concerns for me in this space. The event has an extremely rigid code of conduct that its organisers have imposed on anyone wishing to attend. It includes the removal from the event of anyone who dares to express dissent or any gender-critical views. The irony that such a code of conduct should be imposed on an event billed by organisers as "just a conversation" should be lost on no one. In addition, attendees are encouraged to use women-only facilities in the Building today, including whichever toilets, they feel, best align with their gender. The facilities in Parliament Buildings are used by Members, staff and members of the public, including during school visits by children. Many of those people have expressed concerns over this and about how it makes them feel uncomfortable. Women and young girls who use the Building should feel safe in female-only spaces. This morning, I emailed the event sponsors on behalf of all of our female DUP MLAs asking them to reconsider their support for and facilitation of the event, because, as advised by the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly, sponsors and organisers of an event are ultimately responsible for the conduct of their employees and guests during events. This party will continue to stand up for women's rights and safe spaces, as always. How long will it take for the three parties opposite in the Chamber to understand and respect what a woman is and to be meaningful in their contributions to debates on the safety of women and young girls?
302 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 a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.84 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.88); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.60); Dog-whistle messaging (0.86); Controversy escalation (0.75).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.90).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.88 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.60 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.17 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.86 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.75 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.36 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.84 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| 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 12:22 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.