Member's statement: Safe Access Zones: Clive Johnston
Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 11 May 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Safe Access Zones: Clive Johnston
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5523581
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The conviction of Pastor Clive Johnston marked a profoundly dark day for Northern Ireland and the Assembly. I include the Assembly because it was the House that passed the law that criminalised a man for preaching the gospel. The idea that devolution is some sort of safeguard for civil and religious liberties was finally buried at Coleraine courthouse. All those who voted in favour of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 or found something better to do that day than to vote at all should hang their heads in shame. In 2022, the Green Party led Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and, sadly, the Ulster Unionist Party through the Lobbies to bring in the safe zone legislation. Pastor Johnston is 78 years old. He is no threat to society, yet what was he convicted of? Put simply, he was convicted for preaching from John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
That is a verse that many of us will have learned at Sunday school or seen on posters or on the gable wall of many churches across the country. John 3:16 is a verse that many who sit in the Chamber would do well to heed. It is striking to read in the judgement that it is accepted that Pastor Johnston and his associates on that day had no placards inside the safe zone and that he said nothing about abortion, yet, the perverse and, yes, wicked law passed by the House saw him convicted and fined for daring to preach the gospel in a Christian country. Those are the depths that this country has sunk to. I commend pastor Johnston for his stand. His testimony gives us believers in the House great encouragement, and we should take encouragement from it that, regardless of the obstacles that we find in front of us, we must always put our faith first. I wish Pastor Johnston well in his appeal and trust that many will come to faith through the stand that he has taken for my Lord and Saviour. My faith brought me to Stormont. I will continue to speak up for the unborn and speak out against the holocaust in our time that is abortion:
"Here I stand, I can do no other".
397 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
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: 0.83 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.69); Controversy escalation (0.83).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.56).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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
- Flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement raises a real civil-liberties question, noting that the judgement accepted there were "no placards" and nothing said "about abortion" inside the zone, which is a fair criticism of how a law operates. Most of the text, though, frames the issue as believers persecuted "for daring to preach the gospel in a Christian country". It calls the law "wicked", says those who voted for it "should hang their heads in shame", and ends by calling abortion "the holocaust in our time". That comparison and the religious-grievance framing go well beyond scrutiny of the Act and escalate a recognised social-issues flashpoint.
Public interest or divisiveness
There is substantive content: criticism of legislation and a court outcome, and an argument about freedom of religious expression that someone on the other side could engage with. Alongside it, the statement presents one faith community as under siege in a "Christian country" and implicitly casts supporters of abortion access as complicit in a "holocaust". These elements deepen division on abortion rather than simply arguing about how the law should be framed. Both strands are substantial.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.69 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.26 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.46 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.83 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.20 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.83 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.43 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.91 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| 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 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.