Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601042
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have set out a few times the harm that it is doing, but I am happy to do so again: it makes hypocrites of those of us who argue for freedom for Christians in other countries and ask them to repeal their blasphemy laws. The blasphemy laws of other countries are often draconian and enforced with a heavy hand, and can lead to Christians being held on a register, imprisoned and, in some countries, stoned. In some instances, the Churches have to list their premises on a government list and be inspected, and people cannot carry a Bible home for private reading, or cannot pray together in their own home. Does the Member accept that that is a harm that is worth standing up against? The repeal of blasphemy laws in these islands gives us the power to call for the repeal of blasphemy laws elsewhere because they negatively affect the very people about whom he claims to be concerned: Christians.
Will the Member give way?
Will the Member give way?
Will the Member give way?
Will the Member give way?
Will the Member give way?
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to refer to me as a "part-time" Justice Minister? I have been in the Chamber more often than the Member has over the past number of weeks, and I have never resiled from doing my job fulsomely. Will the Member retract that scurrilous accusation?
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Speaker has already ruled on and written to Members about the interaction between my Department, including me, and the PSNI, and for what I am accountable and for what I am not accountable. The Member to my rear is now challenging the authority of the Speaker in the House. I ask you to consider his remarks and ask the Speaker to rule on them. It is clear that I do not give an account of the PSNI, and nor do I interfere in its operational decision-making.
341 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: 0.36 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (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 overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.25 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.54 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.20 |
| Adopts it | 0.28 |
| 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.