Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 16 June 2026.

MLA: Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 16 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5625012

Text

If you are saying, "Don't do it; it's dangerous", that is fine. Take that position. Say that you agree with the DUP or that you agree with Doug, the UUP or the TUV that we should not raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility because the police are telling you that it is dangerous. That is fine. Say that. Do not make some pretence that it is a failure on my part to convince people who are not convincible about the issue. That is not fair criticism or accountability in the Chamber. If you do not think that it will work, which is, essentially, what you just said and is a new tack, and they are telling you not to do it, that is fine, but own the decision. You want to ride two horses. You want to say that you are in favour of it but not vote in favour of it. That is fine. We know that now.

160 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.15 (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 (0.99).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.09	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.09	No
Controversy escalation	0.11	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.16	No
Overall judgement	0.15	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.99
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.85
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.07
Another identity-related subject	0.03
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.02
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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.

Challenge this classification