Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5615621
Read the official Assembly record
Text
You are all honourable Members, and I pay tribute to the SDLP, as I did in a recent speech. Despite having different views, you were always peaceful and opposed violence, unlike the Members on that side. However, in this case, there was a democratic lever that is legal and on the statute book, and I have used it in extremis. I would rather walk out of this place and never come back than not do what I could. I know that you might enjoy that; that is fine. We do not have to like each other, but I do not abuse anybody in here. I just argue on the facts.
110 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: 0.56 (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).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.52).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
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 | 0.34 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.25 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.36 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.07 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.56 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.43 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.70 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:58 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.