Written question AQW 49670/22-27
Written question by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 25 June 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 49670/22-27
- Department
- Department for Communities
- Business
- To the Minister for Communities
- Assembly identifier
- Document 492794
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister for Communities, pursuant to comments made by the Chief Executive of the Rainbow Project describing the organisation as a political organisation, to detail (i) the amount of funding, whether by grant, contract, service level agreement or any other financial assistance, his Department, its agencies or arm's-length bodies has awarded to the Rainbow Project in each of the last ten financial years, broken down by (a) amount; and (b) purpose; (ii) any assessment his Department has made of whether the Rainbow Project engages in political campaigning or political advocacy; (iii) whether his Department has any policy governing the award of public funds to organisations which engage in political campaigning or describe themselves as political organisations; and (iv) whether, in light of these comments, his Department plans to review any current or future funding provided to the Rainbow Project.
141 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: 0.30 (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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.30 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.49 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 07:18 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.