Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600929
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. I appreciate the fact that you have been generous with your interventions. It is a different question. If you are going to vote against my amendment, you must think that blasphemy legislation should remain on the statute book. You are perfectly entitled to think that and to vote that way, but I am struggling with your argument. You made the point that you see some groups making offensive remarks about the Christian religion. Have you called the police about those groups? Blasphemy is a crime that is on the statute book, so have you asked the Minister of Justice to produce sentencing guidelines for the crimes of blasphemy and blasphemous libel? If you want that provision to remain on the statute book, do you think that it should be used? For me, the fact that it is not used is an argument to get rid of it, because, being superfluous, it does not matter. It should not be there if it is never used. It is about updating our legislation. I agree with a lot of what you are you saying — Christianity is a valued religion in this society — but I want everybody to be able to freely express their religion, which is why I tabled the amendment.
212 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: 0.18 (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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.22 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.29 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.33 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| 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 15:56 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.