Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5615008
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. Clearly, MACR was going to divide the House, but at least it was going to divide it along matters that we were debating and on which we had differences of opinion. The problem with the petition of concern is that it is utterly disrespectful to the House, because instead of letting the majority of Members debate the issues and reach a conclusion, we have a minority abusing a petition that is there to protect minority rights and using it to impose their will on the majority. Frankly, that is why the public think that this place is farcical. Even on a night like this, when we are having serious engagement about serious matters, we cannot constrain ourselves to behaving like any other Chamber would and allow these matters to go through on a straight vote. Yet again, as the Minister who brings the Bill, but not the amendments, I will be disenfranchised, alongside my colleagues, because my vote will count for less than that of Mr O'Toole and everyone else on this side of the House. So, I thank the DUP on the record for reinforcing the case that I have been making about why it is an invidious provision in these institutions and why it needs to be reformed. I am glad that, finally, two Governments and at least four parties are talking about reform. As for Mr Burrows's chat on reform, we will take that with the pinch of salt that it deserves, because he clearly is not interested in making these institutions more functional. He is interested in slipstreaming behind the DUP and the TUV wherever they go, and you know what happens when you get caught in their backwash.
290 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: 0.29 (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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.47 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.12 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.37 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.29 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.49 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.35 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.14 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.