Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600768
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for raising that, because it is a really important issue. There are people who do it by choice. I think that there is a better way in life and in society. However, as Lord Morrow did in his cutting-edge Bill all those years ago, I want to put that question at the heart of our debate, whereby we do all that we can to support the people who are at the front edge of this. I have no sympathy for pimps or people who organise others to take part in sexual activities, but I understand completely what the Member says about the people who are conducting the activity. I recognise that some people are doing it by choice. The police, the law enforcement agencies and the courts can and should take such things into consideration. I pay tribute to Lord Morrow, who was the person who started the work on this. In many ways, what we are doing here is building on his legacy in what is now a digital age.
I will in a wee second. Even though it was only 10 years ago, the advancements in technology and the growth of this evil have been incomprehensible. All those years ago, when we debated the issue, none of us envisaged just how large the problem would become. Now we are left in a situation where there are so many victims in Northern Ireland who are living desperate lives and are in need of rescue. It is up to us to make sure that our laws are the best that they can be in order to do that. I thank the Member for her intervention. The Minister wanted to come in.
285 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 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.