Motion or amendment: Equality Act
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
- Equality Act
- Assembly identifier
- Document 374661
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Equality Act
That this Assembly believes that equality legislation in Northern Ireland is currently outdated and not reflective of the diverse society we have become; further believes that Northern Ireland should have a single Equality Act that reflects the Equality Act 2010, which applies in Great Britain, as well as the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and the developments in social policy and recognition since the 2010 Act; condemns ongoing incidents of hate crime of all kinds, including transphobic hate crime; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to develop a consultation with a view to the passage of a single Equality Act for Northern Ireland during the current Assembly mandate.
114 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: 0.07 (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 (0.92).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.40 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.67 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.