Motion or amendment: Good Relations in Law
Motion or amendment by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 June 2022
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Good Relations in Law
- Assembly identifier
- Document 374662
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Good Relations in Law
That this Assembly endorses the recommendations in Chapter 3 of the report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals, working alongside Executive colleagues, to define the legal duty of good relations in law, with the reduction of hate crime as a key objective of that duty.
66 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.64).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.35 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.91 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.09 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.