Motion or amendment: International Women’s Day 2024
Motion or amendment by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- International Women’s Day 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Document 390982
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
International Women’s Day 2024
That this Assembly recognises that International Women’s Day is a global celebration of the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women; believes that this day both serves as a powerful reminder of the progress made towards gender equality and highlights the work that still needs to be done; and supports action to break down barriers, challenge stereotypes, and create environments where all women are valued and respected.
72 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:
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald – record
- Ms Kellie Armstrong – record
- Mr Danny Baker – record
- Mr Cathal Boylan – record
- Ms Paula Bradshaw – record
- Miss Nicola Brogan – record
- Mr Pádraig Delargy – record
- Mrs Linda Dillon – record
- Miss Jemma Dolan – record
- Ms Sorcha Eastwood – record
- Ms Connie Egan – record
- Mrs Sinéad Ennis – record
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson – record
- Miss Órlaithí Flynn – record
- Mr Colm Gildernew – record
- Miss Deirdre Hargey – record
- Ms Cara Hunter – record
- Ms Liz Kimmins – record
- Mrs Naomi Long – record
- Mr Declan McAleer – record
- Miss Nuala McAllister – record
- Mr Philip McGuigan – record
- Mr Maolíosa McHugh – record
- Mrs Cathy Mason – record
- Ms Sian Mulholland – record
- Miss Áine Murphy – record
- Ms Carál Ní Chuilín – record
- Mr John O'Dowd – record
- Ms Michelle O'Neill – record
- Ms Aisling Reilly – record
- Mr Pat Sheehan – record
- Ms Emma Sheerin – record
- Mr John Stewart – record
- Ms Claire Sugden – 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: 0.04 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.15 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.52 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.48 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:51 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.