Member's statement: Pastor Clive Johnston: Guilty Verdict
Member's statement by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 May 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Pastor Clive Johnston: Guilty Verdict
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5523556
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last Thursday was a sad day for Northern Ireland. For the first time in living memory, we saw a pastor criminalised. It was not for violence, theft or scandalous misconduct — indeed, the judge himself recognised Pastor Clive Johnston as a man of good character. Pastor Johnston was convicted under the safe access zones legislation for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 within a safe access zone. I love it when this country is known around the world for the right reasons: excellence in sport, education or innovation. Yet, last week, for very wrong reasons, we made international headlines because a pastor was convicted for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16. When that legislation came before the Assembly, my party — I spoke in the House — warned that it was bad law. We opposed it for the very reasons that there were serious concerns for religious and civil liberty. The DUP had prepared a petition of concern to stop the legislation. Sadly, it fell one short. We are a nation that has been shaped by a long tradition of constitutional, civil and religious liberty standards. Many of the freedoms enjoyed across the western world developed on these islands, yet, today, we find ourselves in the position where pastors are being criminalised under vague and expansive legislation. Badly written laws have consequences far beyond that which was their first intention.
'For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.'
Those are the words of John chapter 3, verse 16. Just think of that. Other parties in the House have now criminalised the public preaching of those words in certain parts of Northern Ireland, in a nation that has been shaped by over 1,500 years of Christian truth and witness. There are many concerning parts following this judgement. If preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 is capable of amounting to unlawful influence, what about carrying a Bible through a hospital? What about saying a prayer for an end-of-life patient? What about a carol service or speaking with a patient or family member in a ward or in the public area? Those things should not need legal advice. We hold Pastor Clive Johnston and the Christian Institute in our prayers as they tackle this issue.
389 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.56 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.66).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.50).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement responds to a court conviction under the safe access zones legislation and argues that the law is "vague and expansive" and threatens religious and civil liberty. It raises concrete questions about the law's reach, such as "carrying a Bible through a hospital" or "saying a prayer for an end-of-life patient". There is some grievance framing, as in "a nation that has been shaped by over 1,500 years of Christian truth" and "other parties… have now criminalised" the verse, and it leaves out that the zones protect access to abortion services. But it does not portray any community or group as hostile, illegitimate or a threat. Arguing how a law affects a group's rights, while engaging with what that law does, falls within the rubric's legitimate scrutiny.
Public interest or divisiveness
The main thrust is a civil-liberties critique of legislation and its unintended consequences, which is a substantive legal and rights question that someone on the other side could engage with. There is partisan point-scoring about the failed petition of concern, and rhetoric casting the case as Christian truth being criminalised. That framing gives the statement a grievance edge on a recognised social-issues flashpoint, so both elements are present. On balance, it argues about law and liberty rather than attacking a group.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.36 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.33 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.66 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.56 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.47 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:33 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.