Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- 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 5600931
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At various times in my years as an elected representative, I have seen situations in which people wish to take faith, particularly the Christian faith, out of institutions. When people try to do that in our schools and in relation to ceremonies, we will always speak up for the place of faith in the public square. You are all acknowledging where I am likely to end up in my comments. We are concerned that, although blasphemy laws have not been used in prosecutions in recent times, their repeal will be seen, in public messaging, as a victory for those who wish to diminish respect for belief, including those who wish to be derogatory towards belief, and who wish to reduce the role of faith in public life. We will not, therefore, support amendment No 73. We have had a reasonable debate on it. Perhaps there will be more agreement on amendment No 78, which creates an offence of advertising sexual services in exchange for payment. As I mentioned, I am a member of the recently formed all-party group (APG) on modern slavery and commercial sexual exploitation. The APG is conducting an inquiry into the online advertising of sexual services, which is the subject of the amendment. The internet has provided the means to transform the selling of all types of goods and services, including the selling of sexual services on so-called pimping websites. The evidence that has so far been provided to the APG is very disturbing. Such sites operate beyond most people's awareness, yet they hide in plain sight. Studies using the sexual trafficking identification matrix (STIM) assessment reveal a high prevalence of indicators of trafficking in the advertising women on the sites. Many of the women being exploited are under the impression that they have been brought to Northern Ireland, the UK or Ireland for employment, only to find themselves trapped in prostitution. My colleague Paul Frew referred to the BBC documentary about the life and death of Caitlin Hanna, a girl from north Belfast who was trafficked for sexual exploitation in other parts of Belfast and who died in March 2022. As the Justice Minister said, trafficking does not necessarily involve moving someone to another country. One brave witness who addressed the APG explained that she thought that she was in a relationship with a man who gave her a drink containing an unknown drug. That lead to years of addiction, during which she was sexually exploited through prostitution in order to get the drug that her addiction demanded. She was regularly drugged before appointments and had no say in whom she was booked for.
She told us that such prostitution is rife across Northern Ireland and is growing faster than ever. Some of the women whom she worked with were killed by drugs overdoses. She believes that she was given an overdose at one stage in order to kill her, but she survived. Ultimately, her abuser — her pimp — was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. She told us that paramilitaries are up to their necks in sexual exploitation.
In any debate on this matter, some will claim that some people engage in prostitution by choice as a source of income. While that may be the case for a small number of people, the research provided to us by Ruth Breslin of the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute (SERPI), who analysed four pimping websites active in Northern Ireland, indicated that only 5% to 10% of the women advertised could be considered sex workers by choice, whereas 90%-plus were clearly either trafficked or vulnerable, including many who were from overseas. We hope that our amendment will be supported at this stage. Finally, I commend to the House amendment Nos 88 and 89 on preventing domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals.
639 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: 0.21 (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 (0.85).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.59).
- 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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.20 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.21 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.35 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.59 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.84 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.