Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5615161
Read the official Assembly record
Text
To be honest, it almost feels utterly pointless to continue to debate any of the amendments, because we will not be allowed to have a legitimate vote on them, Mr Burrows. By the way, I disagree with your opinions, but you are entitled to hold them. I am not trying to silence your voice. The problem is that, by signing the petitions of concern and perhaps doing a deal with what is left of your parliamentary group, you have created a situation in which the entire debate will be rendered pointless. It is all well and good to fulminate, but do you understand that you, of your own volition, have fundamentally called into question the operability of these institutions? Do you understand that? Many people who want this place to work will be watching our proceedings with hope and a degree of exasperation, and they will see this nonsense tonight and think, "This is being blocked again".
157 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: 0.34 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.25 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.20 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.06 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.34 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.