Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- 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 5625137
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member will be well aware that the last time on which a member of Alliance signed a petition of concern was to do with a debate on abortion. To be fair, it is not often that I disagreed with my colleague Anna Lo, but I did on that occasion: I would not have signed it. David Ford spoke against her signing it because we had said long before 2016 that we wished to see reform of the institutions, with the vetoes and the petition of concern being removed. Part of the impetus for it becoming a bigger issue was that they were being thrown around like confetti at one stage in the Assembly, to the point where nothing could get done. People pre-signed them and all sorts of nonsense. That, at least, is gone, but they are still not being used for the purpose for which they were intended. Brian mentioned unionists and nationalists. Will somebody explain to me how anything that is proposed in the amendments relates more to a unionist or a nationalist; a Catholic, a Protestant or somebody who is neither; a Hindu; or a Muslim? Explain it to me like I am a child, because I do not see where anybody's rights are being offended by what has been proposed.
215 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: 0.18 (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 (0.62).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.63).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.62 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.21 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.16 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.76 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.