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 5615629
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not going to give way again. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. This was potentially the most catastrophically dangerous piece of law that could ever have been passed. It would have stripped victims of their rights and their voice. It would have empowered perpetrators. It would have denied justice. It would have enabled extreme misogyny. It would have provided immunity for upskirting, downblousing and sexual assault. It would have said to one victim, "If you are the victim of attempted murder, you will get justice" but would have said to another victim — the victim of grievous bodily harm with intent — "You will not get any justice at all". It would look at five people involved in the exact same criminality and say to one of them, "You are facing justice, and you are getting taken to court for attempted murder" but to the other four, for conspiracy, "You are not getting touched". It would rob the police of their ability to investigate, to gather evidence and forensics, to put people on bail conditions, to do ID parades and to do any of the things that investigate crime, stop disorder and intervene to keep us safe, and in the name of what? In the name of the UN and, "It is progressive". There is nothing progressive about taking the voice of victims.
There is nothing progressive about giving immunity to people who commit crime. There is nothing progressive about preventing a young person who is facing a serious charge not being able to plead guilty to a lesser offence. There is nothing progressive —.
269 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: 0.15 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.81 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.